User Tag List

Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Why Lucifer IS NOT Satan

  1. #1
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Gods great earth
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Why Lucifer IS NOT Satan

    Many people believe that Satan used to be Lucifer, one of the highest archangels in heaven. This isn't supported by Scripture as we'll see by the following evidences. Lucifer was actually a reference to the king of Babylon in Isaiah.

    This is from a note in the Chronological study Bible called "a failed assault on heaven."

    "The prophet Isaiah uses mythological language in a proverb mocking the king of Babylon (Is. 14:4, 22). His references to the day star, the ascent into heaven, the mount of the congregation, and to Sheol would all have been familiar to his readers from the myths of the ancient near east. The name 'Lucifer' is a latin translation of the Hebrew word helel meaning 'shining one.' Lucifer refers to the day star, Venus, and the prophet further identifies him as 'the son of the morning' (14:12). Similar language appears appears with the Ugaritic deities Shahar and Shalim. Shahar was the god of dawn or morning; Shalim, the god of dusk or evening. In another Ugaritic text, Shahar (morning) appears together with Athtar, the star deity who is also identified with Venus.So the ancient myths possibly had made Isaiah's readers familiar with the day star whose father was the god of the morning. Isaiah's taunt of the day star for wanting to ascend into heaven (14:13) may reflect the Ugaritic myth of Athtar, the Venus star deity who is also identified with Venus. Athtar attempts to ascend to the throne of Baal, but is not able and is forced to return to his own, lower position of the pantheon. Athtar was not storming heaven, only sitting on the vacated throne of Baal. He excuses himself from the position upon realizing that he is too small. Nevertheless, a day star ascending to heaven was known in Canaanite myth. In Isaiah's proverb, the day star desires to sit on 'the mount of congregation' located 'on the farthest sides of the north (14:13).' Similarly, Canaanite myths spoke of the mountain home of Baal on Saphon (the Hebrew word translated 'north') and also of a mount of assembly. In Isaiah's proverb, the day star fails to ascend to heaven and is brought down to Sheol, the netherworld also called the pit (14:15.) Similarly, in ancient Near Eastern mythology gods could die and be sent to Mot's netherworld. The reason that Baal's throne was vacant in the Ugaritic myth was that Mot had vanquished Baal and taken him to the realm of the dead."

    This is from another note.

    "The planet Venus was an important subject for ancient mythology. It is bright when it rises, but when the sun comes up, Venus becomes invisible like any other star. The prophet mocks the king of Babylon, calling him "Lucifer" (Is. 14:12), a translation of the Hebrew word for the day star Venus. The king was trying to rival the sun, and the prophet rebuked him in these terms."

    Many people interpret the "heaven" and "sacred mountain" in Isaiah to be referring to the abode of YHWH. Nevertheless, it actually refers to the dwelling place of false idols. This note is taken from the Archaeological study Bible.

    "The sacred mountain is mount Zaphon which is northeast of Ugarit in Syria. Much like Mount Olympus for the Greeks, the Canaanites considered this holy mountain to be the dwelling and meeting place of the gods."

    It's interesting to note there's no concept of Satan originally being an angel in ancient Jewish theology.

    With all of these evidences, it's clear that the tale of Satan originally being an angel is false doctrine.

  2. #2
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,209
    Thanks
    244
    Thanked 463 Times in 386 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    42750
    Quote Originally Posted by Disciple_of_christ View Post
    Many people believe that Satan used to be Lucifer, one of the highest archangels in heaven. This isn't supported . . .

    It's interesting to note there's no concept of Satan originally being an angel in ancient Jewish theology.

    With all of these evidences, it's clear that the tale of Satan originally being an angel is false doctrine.
    Here, an authentic Satanist (I don't suppose you're one of them?) begs to differ, fwiw.

    In these words, "Satan" and "Lucifer" are interchangeable, and he is called "Archangelo."
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  3. #3
    Over 750 post club Bradley D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    917
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 265 Times in 183 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    168840
    Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
    (12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!--The word for Lucifer is, literally, the shining one, the planet Venus, the morning star, the son of the dawn, as the symbol of the Babylonian power, which was so closely identified with astrolatry. "Lucifer" etymologically gives the same meaning, and is used by Latin poets (Tibull. i., 10, 62) for Venus, as an equivalent for the phosphoros of the Greeks. The use of the word, however, in mediaeval Latin as a name of Satan, whose fall was supposed to be shadowed forth in this and the following verse, makes its selection here singularly unfortunate. Few English readers realise the fact that it is the king of Babylon, and not the devil, who is addressed as Lucifer. While this has been the history of the Latin word, its Greek and English equivalents have risen to a higher place, and the "morning star" has become a name of the Christ (Revelation 22:16).

  4. #4
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Gods great earth
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Bradley D View Post
    Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
    (12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!--The word for Lucifer is, literally, the shining one, the planet Venus, the morning star, the son of the dawn, as the symbol of the Babylonian power, which was so closely identified with astrolatry. "Lucifer" etymologically gives the same meaning, and is used by Latin poets (Tibull. i., 10, 62) for Venus, as an equivalent for the phosphoros of the Greeks. The use of the word, however, in mediaeval Latin as a name of Satan, whose fall was supposed to be shadowed forth in this and the following verse, makes its selection here singularly unfortunate. Few English readers realise the fact that it is the king of Babylon, and not the devil, who is addressed as Lucifer. While this has been the history of the Latin word, its Greek and English equivalents have risen to a higher place, and the "morning star" has become a name of the Christ (Revelation 22:16).
    Exactly, it was originally a Catholic doctrine that was never based on proper interpretation of the Scriptures.

  5. #5
    Trainee
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    I read somewhere (I think it was one of Pagels' books) that "Satan" is a common noun and not a name, and it means "advocate" or similar.

  6. #6
    LIFETIME MEMBER steko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    13,800
    Thanks
    29,632
    Thanked 22,287 Times in 12,165 Posts

    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147730
    Quote Originally Posted by ralfy View Post
    I read somewhere (I think it was one of Pagels' books) that "Satan" is a common noun and not a name, and it means "advocate" or similar.
    'ha satan' means 'the adversary' in Hebrew.
    Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[YHVH], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
    Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he[the Branch] shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

  7. #7
    Over 750 post club Bradley D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    917
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 265 Times in 183 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    168840
    Quote Originally Posted by ralfy View Post
    I read somewhere (I think it was one of Pagels' books) that "Satan" is a common noun and not a name, and it means "advocate" or similar.
    Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
    adversary, Satan, withstand

    From satan; an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed) Satan, the arch-enemy of good -- adversary, Satan, withstand.

  8. #8
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    464
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 70 Times in 57 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    15901
    Satan is Lucifer. This is a consensus in Christianity at least back in the 4th century. It's not something we today misunderstood.

    Augustine:
    For example, what is said in Isaiah, “How he is fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning!” and the other statements in that context that speak of the king of Babylon are of course to be understood of the devil.


    Jerome:
    Why did the devil fall? Because he committed theft? Because he committed murder? Because he committed adultery? These are certainly evils, but the devil did not fall because of any of these; he fell because of his tongue. What was it that he said? “I will scale the heavens; above the stars I will set up my throne; I will be like the Most High!”


    Ambrose:
    The serpent, however, introduced sin through his disobedience, a sin which we are now able to identify as pride, the author of which is the devil, whom the prophet portrayed as saying, “I will seat my throne above the clouds and I will be like the Most High.”


    Cassiodorus:
    The devil regarded himself as great when he said, “I will set my throne at the north, and I will be like the Most High.”

  9. #9
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Gods great earth
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    A consensus does not necessarily dictate a proper interpretation of Scripture especially considering the evidence against such an interpretation.

  10. #10
    LIFETIME MEMBER Bright Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Calfornia
    Posts
    9,233
    Thanks
    383
    Thanked 4,921 Times in 2,857 Posts

    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147751
    Then who is Lucifer?
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

    Jim Elliot

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bright Raven For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 15th, 2019),k0de (July 17th, 2019)

  12. #11
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    464
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 70 Times in 57 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    15901
    Quote Originally Posted by Disciple_of_christ View Post
    A consensus does not necessarily dictate a proper interpretation of Scripture especially considering the evidence against such an interpretation.
    If the consensus is from our early church fathers, then the consensus shouldn't be taken lightly. Such a consensus may be originated from the Jews who started our Christianity. In the end, it may be a Jewish concept conveyed even by the apostles.

    It is thus in the very contrary that you need to provide strong evidence that it's not so before we can get to the conclusion that Satan is not Lucifer.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Hawkins For Your Post:

    k0de (July 17th, 2019)

  14. #12
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Gods great earth
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkins View Post
    If the consensus is from our early church fathers, then the consensus shouldn't be taken lightly. Such a consensus may be originated from the Jews who started our Christianity. In the end, it may be a Jewish concept conveyed even by the apostles.

    It is thus in the very contrary that you need to provide strong evidence that it's not so before we can get to the conclusion that Satan is not Lucifer.
    The problem is that the people you quoted from have no association with the early church fathers or Apostles. In fact, Jerome was a Catholic.

  15. #13
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Gods great earth
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Bright Raven View Post
    Then who is Lucifer?
    The King of Babylon. Lucifer isn't even a proper figure in the Scriptures. The name "Lucifer" only appears in 1 Bible translation. Plus it's only a latin translation of the morning star.

  16. #14
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,703
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,217 Times in 859 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    285398
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkins View Post
    If the consensus is from our early church fathers, then the consensus shouldn't be taken lightly. Such a consensus may be originated from the Jews who started our Christianity. In the end, it may be a Jewish concept conveyed even by the apostles.

    It is thus in the very contrary that you need to provide strong evidence that it's not so before we can get to the conclusion that Satan is not Lucifer.
    There's some speculation in the above. I would like to add, however, that there is an ancient Jewish tradition of interpreting Biblical texts in a creative way, even if the interpretation does not match the plain sense of the text. This is called Midrash. So you can creatively interpret the verse to refer to Satan, even though the plain sense of the verses don't really suggest that at all.

    Some of the Gospels need to be understood in this way as well. When I read Matthew, it seems very familiar to me.

  17. #15
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,209
    Thanks
    244
    Thanked 463 Times in 386 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    42750
    Quote Originally Posted by Disciple_of_christ View Post
    The problem is that the people you quoted from have no association with the early church fathers or Apostles. In fact, Jerome was a Catholic.
    Every single Christian for the first millennium of the Church's life was Catholic.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us